LOCAL WILDLIFE PROTECTION

LOCAL WILDLIFE PROTECTION It could be argued that many of our LGUs could barely take care of their human populations, such that they may not have the interest at all to even care for the wildlife in their jurisdictions. I think however, that that is a faulty argument, because when politicians run for public office, they should be able to provide attention to a whole gamut of concerns, not just for human oriented services, but also for the environment, including all of God’s creation, which of course includes wildlife. If any politician will declare that he or she has neither the time nor the interest to protect wildlife, then he or she should have no business running for office, and if he or she does run, then the people should not even vote for him. Besides, wildlife is part of the environmental balance of nature and if a politician does not value the environment, then the people should not value him also. I believe that the first duty of a public official is to find out what are the wildlife species that are still living in their jurisdictions, especially those that are already endangered. Not unless they know that, they may not be able to make intelligent decisions when it comes to approving or disapproving the environmental impact statements of project proponents. For example, the Tarsier is found not only in Bohol, but also in Samar, Leyte and Mindanao. And there are species of native deer and wild boar that could still be found in local forests. Can anyone tell me which LGUs are not protecting their wildlife? 03-16-2024